Posted - 06/30/2011 : 10:43:22 If Steven Stamkos and the TBL are unable to come to an agreement on a contract who do you think gives him an offer sheet? Do you think Stammer is actually leaving Tampa or is this much ado about nothing?

Posted - 07/12/2011 : 15:42:36 a look back at the one offer sheet that has gone through (dustin penner from anahiem to edmonton)

the oilers gave up the first 3 picks they had in the 2008 nhl entry draft (12th, 43rd, and 73rd) now time will tell how those picks play out as the only one to get significant time thus far is tyler myers (12th).... the 43rd was justin schultz and the 73rd was kirill petrov. However, what we are forgetting is that the oilers did not and possibly would not have drafted any of these players with these picks; all the players the oilers may have drafted could have been busts.

regardless with the lack of young D-men on the team i'm sure tyler myers would greatly benefit them.

the scenario gets much more interesting when the oilers flip penner at the trade deadline this year for another 3 players (confusing right?)

defenseman Colten Teubert, drafted No. 13 overall in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft (ironically the pick right after tyler myers); a first-round pick in 2011 (oscar klefbom @ 19th overall) and a conditional third-round pick in 2012 (hopefully someone else knows the conditions) --> that was the return on penner...

So my question is does it really hurt your team even if you suck to go the offer sheet route? the oilers have been one of the worst teams since 2008 and they ended up doing quite all right IMO

slozo

Posted - 07/12/2011 : 10:32:50 Beans is right on Heatley - and after those two 50 goal seasons back to back, he was basically the top young player that anyone would have wanted.

Sort of the same as Stamkos, except that I would say back to back 50 goal, 100 point seasons is something Stamkos has never done.

Stamkos is a very talented player, but I am not convinced that he actually creates a lot of his own offense at this point. He has a great Brett Hull slapshot, that is for sure; but he has to prove himself a consistent player, and improve his defence and playmaking, to go to the head of the class, IMHO.

All a moot point, regardless. He ain't leaving TB.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Guest4312

Posted - 07/12/2011 : 10:28:28 i would agree that stamkos being a one-dimensional goal scorer has hurt him and will continue to do so ... he was left off of team canada 2010 for a reason and its not because of his offensive production

Guest4312

Posted - 07/12/2011 : 10:27:19 i'm not a big fan of stamkos myself but the guy puts the puck in the net. at a time early in the season people were saying 50 in 50 which i knew was ridiculous but the fact is that he is a natural goal scorer and up and coming player whereas heatley is IMO on his way out of the elite.

also heatley did not score 50 goals until what would have been his 5th season in the league (4th technically b/c of the lockout)stamkos got 51 (more than heatley has ever gotten) in his second season.

when heatley got back to back 50 goal seasons he played on that ottawa senators team that was extremely high scoring (until they met the ducks) at the time he had back to back 100+ point seasons and has yet to reach 90 since then... i just feel his stats were padded being on the best team in the league

Beans15

Posted - 07/12/2011 : 10:13:09 Guest 4312, you might want to do a little research on Dany Heatley. If you did, you would see that Dany Heatley compared to Steven Stamkos through their first 3 (full) seasons they are separated by 1 goal. Heatley did have a injury shortened season in his first 4 years of just 30 games. However, count his first 2 seasons and his 4 season and they are virtually idential. Furthermore, Dany Heatley can play defense too!!

Stamkos is a great player, and could be the best pure goal scorer in the NHL today. But what separates him from players like Ovechkin, Parise, and the other great goal scorers is that Stamkos has not shown to do much of anything other than score goals. Ovechkin commands respect because of his speed and physical play and Parise brings speed to the mix as well.

Guest4312

Posted - 07/12/2011 : 07:24:03 just one thing i wanted to comment on... beans i don't know how you can think heatley is better than stamkos. stamkos is the new nhl's bretty hull a pure goal scorer who is years from his prime. the comparison to kovalchuk was a little more accurate as i recall the days in atlanta when marc savard would dish him the puck in the high slot and he would roof a one timer past the goalie.

slozo

Posted - 07/12/2011 : 05:33:03 Word on the street (I have an inside source, actually, but don't want to reveal it) is that Stamkos has returned to his home in Toronto, away from the negotiations.

What this means, to me at least, is that the deal is assured and almost done - I think they are just haggling over little things at this point.

Guest 4178 - interesting points on the Vanek offer. It does, in retrospect, seem totally crazy to me that Buffalo matched the offer. Those 4 first rounders would have translated into an amazing cache of talent to add to the roster (through trades or through keeping them), which may or may not have been the same guys, but still - it's quite a crop.

I find it funny with all of you guys talking about the obvious collusion and agreement among the GMs, and yet insisting that you are no believer in conspiracy. It's really quite funny.

Conspiracy happens daily in the business world . . . it's how you make money to get one up on someone. It's normal. It's a secret agreement usually between two or more people to gain an advantage or perform a deed . . . that's it - that's the definition of conspiracy.

If there was no conspiracy, Buffalo would have said "fine - take Vanek, thanks for the 4 first rounders".

If there was no conspiracy, Toronto would have more than one team in its wider metropolitan area.

These things do not happen by accident. There is a TONNE of money involved here, folks . . .

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Guest4178

Posted - 07/11/2011 : 09:20:22 RC – you and I are not far off in our opinions. You're right – there are a lot of "if's" involved, and that's why I stated that if I were a GM, I would only consider sending Stamkos an offer sheet. But if I were the GM of 3 or 4 certain teams (teams with cap space, etc., meaning a number of the "if's" were addressed), only then would I strongly consider sending Stamkos an offer sheet.

I agree there are a lot of risks in signing Stamkos (including the risk of injury, future cap space, where you end up in the standings, etc.), but there are major IF's with draft picks. Some teams can go ten draft years without finding a player like Stamkos. Look at the Oilers picks the last ten years (prior to 2010), and how many superstars did they select out of their roughly 70 picks? And they were picking in the top half of each round!

I'm no conspiracy theorist, so I don't usually like throwing out the "c" words (collusion or code), so let me suggest there is a gentlemen's agreement regarding big name RFA's, because I think there are a couple of teams who could benefit by making a deal for Stamkos.

Just curious though. The last big name RFA offer sheet I can remember (one which involved 4 first round picks) was in 2007 when the Oilers offered Thomas Vanek a 7-year $50 million deal. It's very interesting that Buffalo chose to match the offer, and it's even more interesting to note that the future draft picks turned out to be Eberle, Paajarvi, Hall and Nugent-Hopkyns.

Now it's very unlikely that the same draft order (and same draft picks) would have resulted if Vanek became an Oiler, but I'm just curious – why did Buffalo's GM match this offer? They would have got four first rounders for Vanek. And what was Oiler's GM Kevin Lowe thinking at the time – giving up four future first-rounders (and a big contract) for Vanek? Was Lowe an "idiot" for sending the offer sheet? And was he lucky that Buffalo's GM made the "idiotic" move of matching the offer sheet? (By the way, I thought the Oilers were offering too much for Vanek then and now.)

Fast forward to today, and in looking at the lack of big name offer sheets for RFA's, did Buffalo make a statement (on behalf of all other teams and GM's) showing that they will match whatever offer is presented?

I still maintain that Stamkos is worth losing four future first round picks (with all the provisos indicated in my first posting), so the question remains – why no offer sheets?

I think most GM's know that Tampa will probably match any offer sheets provided. But there's another reason, and it comes back to what I believe to be an "understanding" amongst the league GM's. IF the Oilers go after Stamkos, then they are fair game when their young guns become RFA's, so if they "play their cards right," the likelihood that one of their RFA's gets an offer sheet is reduced. (Maybe with the exception of Brian Burke – he may still be upset about the Penner signing a few years back.) But once again, there were very few GM's sticking up for Lowe when he sent the offer sheet to Penner. The silence was deafening!

99pickles

Posted - 07/11/2011 : 02:07:26 Just for the record, I noticed that Tampa let another RFA sign elsewhere Mike Lundin signed in Minny. Obviously Stevie Y is saving his cash for Stammer. I speculate that it's going to cost him around $9.5M per season to satiate him.

99pickles

Posted - 07/11/2011 : 02:03:06

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

First off, I take 2 of those 4 foursomes over Stamkos. Burns and Richards alone are worth Stamkos. Frolov, Orpik, and Boyes as well.

Secondly, people are forgetting that just because a team puts in a offer sheet it does not mean the player will sign it! There is no collusion going on at all. Do a little reading people. You will quickly read that anything that being quoted from anyone relevent (meaning Yzerman, Stamkos, or Meehan) says they are still working on a deal, all parties want a deal, Stamkos wants to stay in TB, and something will happen shortly.

Finally, I still stand by that if you look through the history of big players traded for or offer sheets for draft picks, the team trading away the draft picks loses almost every time. Rather than do this speculation about who would pick where or when or how, take a look back in history and show me trades for high draft picks or offer sheets that worked out better for the teams who traded the picks.

I think I will be waiting a long time for this...............

Beans, just to be clear, in my own response I agreed that "there appears to be some form of collusion going on". If I were to say that I fully believe there is major, backroom collusion taking place (which I never would because I am not a foolish conspiracy theorist) I would say just that. But i don't think that, I personally believe that Yzerman might be enjoying a little more breathing room than normal (as stated in my post)

In defense of my own speculations, I am simply a hockey fan spiffballing about the situation as there is no real hockey going on...I am merely interested in this, and many, FA scenarios playing out. It is fun!This topic is in fact an invitation by Guest4312 to speculate on the situation, no? He or she has initiated a nice dialogue here and I, for one, am thoroughly enjoying it.

As for the statement "just because an offer is made doesn't mean the player will sign it", that is hardly a newsflash as I believe that everyone here knows that an offer is only that. It appears some are merely speculating that Stamkos would actually sign an offer if it were huge, as have many NHLers in the past.

And of course they are "working on a deal", beans - this is also hardly a newsflash. I expect that now that we are 11 days into free agency, any GMs with notable RFAs and UFAs are engaged in some form of dialogue in order to sign them.

Reading back over my reply here, I realize that I sound a little argumentative towards you - that is not my intent. I just wanted to respond, or address, a couple elements of your post.

Stamkos is a great player, and would instantly make any team he joins better. Much better, if that team already has good goaltending and solid defence but lacks that clutch scoring power up front. Playing at his peak potential, on a team that consistently goes deep into the playoffs (and therefore gets late 1st round picks) he would *probably* be worth the picks in the long run.

The thing is, when you add a massive salary cap hit to that *probably*. and the fact that each and every player in the NHL is just one freak serious injury away from missing a season, or never playing as well again, the odds tilt, in my oppinion (and that of most GMs, by the look of things) strongly towards keeping the draft picks.

In short, signing an RFA like Stamkos is a good deal if your team needs exactly what he offers as a player, if he continues to play at his very best, if he doesn't get hurt, if you can handle the salary cap hit without hurting the rest of your team, and if the picks you trade away for him don't pan out.

That's a lot of ifs. Who would still take that risk, especially when keeping those picks, despite the odds they won't ever develop into a superstar,still leaves your team with options? Not every pick is going to develop into a superstar, but four years of being able to either pick (an action that seems so much more satisfying than random chance - some people are talking about draft picks as though they are drawing random cards from a deck) a player who fills a role your team knows it will need in a few years, or to trade for a player who meets a current need. One big signing equals one risk which is more or less out of the team's control. Four years of picks may not develop into anything of note, but the perception of risk, and chance of catastrophe, is much lower.

Furthermore, as a Toronto fan I can tell you that perception means as much as results for a GM making a big RFA deal. Kessel has done more for the Leafs so far than the picks surrendered to sign him would have, but the team still sucked, and very, very few fans are going to say, with hindsight, that the deal was a good one. After a history of disasterous moves since the dawn of the salary cap age, any GM with half a brain (or worried about his job security!) is going to shy away from a single deal that handcuffs his team to the fortunes of one player for years to come.

I doubt Stamkos is going anywhere. The interesting thing will be to see how long of a deal he signs...

"If at first you don't succeed, you fail"

Beans15

Posted - 07/10/2011 : 17:12:31 It doesn't happen often where a player moves for a number of draft picks. The reason for that is twofold. Firstly, rarely does a player come along that commands that kind of price in a trade. Secondly, most GM's are not idiots who sell their goose who lays golden eggs.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think there is merit in your argument however I don't see the value in this player. If we were talking about Crosby or Ovechkin, I might agree. However, Steven Stamkos, to this point in his career, is a one-dimensional sniper with the ability to score 50 goals on occasion. That sounds a lot like Ilya Kovalchuk and honestly a lesser player than Dany Heatley in his prime.

Is that player worth 4-1st round draft picks?? I don't see it. Not only that, no team can assume where they will finish in the standings. NJ is a great example as a team whom many would be counted on to lead the Atlantic last season but they miss the playoffs. What about Brian Burke publically stating he had a playoff team when making the deal for Kessel only to give Boston a #2 overall and a #8 over all.

The risks are far too great and Stamkos is not as good a player as a Crosby or Ovechkin. He doesn't command that kind of respect.

Guest8149

Posted - 07/10/2011 : 14:09:00 There's a saying with trades that goes something like "the team that gets the best player wins the trade," and that logic often applies for trades where more than one player is exchanged for a single player. IMO, I would rather have Stamkos than any of the foursomes described, as long as my team had the budget, cap space and prospects to compete for a cup in the next 3-4 seasons.

Beans makes a case that he would take 2 out of the four foursomes presented. I wouldn't, and especially if there was a 50% chance that you would end up with one of the two other hypothetical foursomes.

That's the problem with draft picks. You never know what you're going to get. With Stamkos, a team is getting a sure thing - an elite player in the NHL. In my opinion, better than Richards and Burns combined, and better than what a team is likely to get with 4 late round picks in the future.

And as far as past history goes (big time offer sheets going to an elite player), how many times has a team given up 4 first rounders for a big name RFA? So how much history is there? Penner doesn't belong in the big name category, that's for sure! My opinion is that Stamkos is going to be an elite player in the NHL for a long time - maybe not Crosby or Ovechkin, but close.

So it depends to some extent on what you think of Stamkos, because if we were having this discussion about a 21 year old Crosby or Ovechkin, I would be surprised to hear someone say they would not give up 4 future 1st round picks for one of these two players!

Beans15

Posted - 07/10/2011 : 09:54:18 First off, I take 2 of those 4 foursomes over Stamkos. Burns and Richards alone are worth Stamkos. Frolov, Orpik, and Boyes as well.

Secondly, people are forgetting that just because a team puts in a offer sheet it does not mean the player will sign it! There is no collusion going on at all. Do a little reading people. You will quickly read that anything that being quoted from anyone relevent (meaning Yzerman, Stamkos, or Meehan) says they are still working on a deal, all parties want a deal, Stamkos wants to stay in TB, and something will happen shortly.

Finally, I still stand by that if you look through the history of big players traded for or offer sheets for draft picks, the team trading away the draft picks loses almost every time. Rather than do this speculation about who would pick where or when or how, take a look back in history and show me trades for high draft picks or offer sheets that worked out better for the teams who traded the picks.

I think I will be waiting a long time for this...............

99pickles

Posted - 07/08/2011 : 14:08:29 Very insightful post, Guest 4178.

I agree that there appears to be some form of collusion going on. With the number of teams with cap room, I am a little surprised we haven't seen an offer yet. It is very true that GMs don't want to do something too extreme in order to avoid looking foolish later.

Also, I agree that Yzerman may garner some respect from at least some of the GMs resulting in a reduced inclination to poaching.. Plus, he actually has the space to match any realistic offer...unfortunately, at the expense of allowing 3 significant UFAs walk away.

Also, draft picks really just aren't that valuable, are they?

At this point, it would seem that if any team were licking their chops at the prospect of signing Stamkos to an offer, they would have done so by now.

Guest4178

Posted - 07/08/2011 : 12:33:29 If I'm the GM of a team which is poised to move up in the standings, I would consider sending Stamkos an offer sheet.

Stamkos is 21 years old, and has some great years ahead of him. I think he will be a top five player for years to come, and he may be the league MVP in the next 2-3 seasons. He may not be an Ovechkin or Crosby, but he's very close.

As far as giving up draft picks are concerned, draft picks are very unreliable. (Even first rounders.) Take a look at the past 15-20 years or more, and roughly a 1/3 of the players taken turn out to be very good or great players. Another 1/3 of the first round picks are average players, and the remaining 1/3 barely register a season in the NHL.

Try this exercise, and see what four first round picks yields. Take four random numbers between 15 - 30, and go back a few years (there's no use looking back 3-4 years or less, because it takes time for some talent to develop), and see what comes up.

I did, and here are the numbers I picked (before looking at the results), and here are the four first round draft picks taken in spots 18, 20, 22 and 24 from the 2000 - 2003:

2000:

Brooks Orpik, Alex Frolov, Dave Hale, Brad Boyes

2001:

Jens Karlsson, Marcel Goc, Jiri Novotny, Lukas Krajickek

2002:

Denis Grebeshkov, Danielle Paille, Sean Bergenheim, Alex Steen

2003:

Eric Fehr, Brent Burns, Marc-Andre Pouliot, Mike Richards

I would take a Stamkos over any of those foursomes, even the 2003 grouping with Mike Richards! Look at the duds in 2001 and 2002! (Once again, I selected four random numbers BEFORE looking at the results.)

I also assumed that a team making an offer to Stamkos is already a playoff team (or very close), and that adding Stamkos would make them instantly a better team. A team would need cap space to do so also.

I would put the Rangers, Kings and Ducks in this category, but they would have to manage their cap space. They have enough room right now, but signing Stamkos for let's say $80 million for 8-10 seasons would be quite a commitment.

If I'm one of those teams, I would strongly consider it. I might, and I emphasize might, do it if I were the Oilers. They appear to have the cap space, and they have nowhere to go but up. Would signing Stamkos make them a playoff team this upcoming season? Maybe, and if so, they would only lose a later first round pick (nothing in the top 14) in the 2012 draft year, and an even later first round draft pick in the next three years. But you can only make that move if you think your team is poised to dramatically improve (so you don't lose a series of top 10 first round picks), and if your owner is prepared to spend the cap max!

So why is this not happening? I think trading future first round draft picks has the potential of making a GM look bad in the future, so this might be a reason why? But I think the big reason it's not happening is because there's a level of unspoken collusion going on. ("Unspoken collusion" – is there any other kind?)

When Kevin Lowe signed Dustin Penner a number of years ago, Brian Burke made a big stink about Lowe going after his RFA, and I actually think a lot of GMs agreed with Burke.

Fast forward to today, and how many times has someone sent an offer sheet to an RFA, and in particular, to a big name RFA? I can't think of too many. And when you consider that Yzerman is Tampa's GM, I think a lot of GMs are less inclined to send an offer sheet to one of his players, especially with Yzerman's reputation as a player and new GM.

It's gotta be more than giving up the draft picks, because when a player like Stamkos comes along, four late first round picks is actually not too much to offer! But it all depends on what you think of Stamkos. And maybe it all goes for naught anyway? What if someone sends a huge offer sheet to Stamkos, only to see it matched by Tampa? Is this a GM's worry? That they will not get the player, and look like a poacher?

Guest3174

Posted - 07/08/2011 : 12:21:08

quote:Originally posted by Guest4350

Stamkos stats are all because of St-Louis. Without Marty, Steven doesn't do too well. I'd offer Stamkos the same as Marty for a longer duration. We saw what happened to Lecavalier when he was with and without Marty.

lecavalier went downhill cause of his shoulder

Guest4350

Posted - 07/08/2011 : 08:59:05 Stamkos stats are all because of St-Louis. Without Marty, Steven doesn't do too well. I'd offer Stamkos the same as Marty for a longer duration. We saw what happened to Lecavalier when he was with and without Marty.

Pasty7

Posted - 07/07/2011 : 19:52:09 don't forget Stamkos was the hotest player in the NHL up until the all star break but down the stretch he cooled off signifigantly and in the last 20 or so games was even seeing time on the third line,,, now their could be circumstances i do not know about but if i were paying a player anything over 6 million a season he better rise to the occaision, now i know Stamkos is still young and a premier talent, but he was not a premier talent in the playoffs or down the stretch...... i wouldn't give him 8 million,,, and thats probably what he wants and Yzerman is not sure he wants to give him that much, Stamkos only had 13 points in the playoffs now thats nothing to snicker at for most players but at 7 plus million a year you want more out of your superstar, and i know it was his first playoff and such and he finished with 91 point in 82 games last season and 95 the season before,, but it would concern me how i think he scored 21 of his 45 goals in the first 21 games, and then in his last 30 game sof the season scored something like 3,,

"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker

99pickles

Posted - 07/07/2011 : 18:11:33

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Why does Tampa need to pay Stamkos $12 million??? I can't see how he will get the most money in the entire NHL. The max he can make is $12 mil/season, but it is far more likely for him to sign for $7-8 million.

Tampa can sign him longish term (5-6 years) for $7 million a season and still have room for other moves. That is reasonable.

Frankly, if he want's $12 million and I was Stevie Y, he would be gone before you could blink. He's not worth that much money.

I couldn't agree more with every part of your statement, but in a worst-case scenario where, let's say, the NY Islanders pulls a "Lowe vs, Burke" and signs him to something insane (because Wong is certainly not known to do that right ?) then you would think they would want to be prepared for the worst.

I truly hope he does not get more than $8M because it's just too much in my opinion.

Here's my confusion: What the heck is Yzerman waiting for?? Is he waiting on the Stamkos camp's decision or something?? They've already let Bergenheim, Gagne, and Jones walk.

I agree, if someone way over-offered Stamkos, I would just take the draft picks!

Mario 66

Posted - 07/07/2011 : 09:20:53 Gotcha!!!

Every journey begins with a single step.

nuxfan

Posted - 07/07/2011 : 09:16:30

quote:but I have a hard time believing that they would make the contract front loaded when they require the cap space to sign other legimate components to their team.

That is exactly the reason that you front load a deal - so you can get a deal that makes the player happy (ie, they get money) while keeping your cap hit low so you can sign other players.

The cap hit and the salary paid to players are 2 different things.

nuxfan

Posted - 07/07/2011 : 09:15:06

quote:Nuxfan, although I agree with your assessment I disagree with the way the contract will be set up. Stamkos seems to be of the mindset of team success first & individual after. I don't forsee him handcuffing the lighting and forcing them to select between him or the other names to soon be RFA's or UFA's

Time will tell, but front loaded or signing-bonus heavy deals are the way that teams are using to get money to players while lowering the overall cap hit. Straight-line amortization is a thing of the past, the way deals are structured is evolving to get better use out of limited cap space. I would not be surprised to see the next CBA clamp down on them hard - so this seasons deals might be the last we'll see of them.

You mentioned the Crosby and OV deal - I think that if PIT and WSH could go back in time, they would try to structure those deals a whole lot differently than they are structured now, given the current cap issues that both teams are struggling with.

For someone like Stamkos, there is precedent set for the lower cap-hit long term deal - Mike Richards might be the extreme, but Seabrook, Keith, and Carter are also examples of recent younger players signed to cap-friendly but front loaded long term deals.

I would not be surprised to see Stamkos sign a Keith-type deal - similar structure but with bigger numbers. And I would also look for Doughty to sign something similar as well.

Mario 66

Posted - 07/07/2011 : 08:28:32 Nuxfan, although I agree with your assessment I disagree with the way the contract will be set up. Stamkos seems to be of the mindset of team success first & individual after. I don't forsee him handcuffing the lighting and forcing them to select between him or the other names to soon be RFA's or UFA's

The reason it won't be front loaded is because Stamkos is only 23 yrs old & Richards is 30. Richards last cpl yrs may not even played out were as Stamkos if he were to sign a 7 - 10yr deal would essentially be in the prime of his career when the contract expires.

I could see something more along the lines of a Crosby or Ovechkin deal & believe Stamkos will sign for 9yrs 81 million, with bonuses added in to fatten the deal. I could see his salary being about 4 - 6 the first cpl yrs to allow other contracts to build the team & then 8- 10 as he approaches his late 20's. I could be wrong, but I have a hard time believing that they would make the contract front loaded when they require the cap space to sign other legimate components to their team.

Obviously, only time will tell.

Every journey begins with a single step.

nuxfan

Posted - 07/06/2011 : 14:18:24 yeah, TB is not going to pay Stamkos 12M. Some other team that signs him to an offer sheet might have to pony that up, but if TB signs him, its going to be a Brad-Richards style contract - high in front-end cash and reasonable in cap hit.

TB has 15M to sign 4 more players. I would think that if a deal is done, Stamkos will eat up nearly half of that cap space, leaving TB with 7.5M to sign the other 3 players - easily doable for the coming season.

The problem for TB will come after this season though, as 99pickles points out. They'll have several more players as UFA, Hedman and Downie become RFA, and they would need to address their goaltending situation in some way. If Stamkos does get that 7.5M, TB would have 38M committed to 10 players, leaving 27M to sign 13 players. Not easy.

The only thing that might get in the way is if TB decides they do not want to be (or cannot be) a team that spends to the full cap. If they are not that team, then its going to be hard to keep all their big guns and build a team around them.

Beans15

Posted - 07/06/2011 : 13:37:47 Why does Tampa need to pay Stamkos $12 million??? I can't see how he will get the most money in the entire NHL. The max he can make is $12 mil/season, but it is far more likely for him to sign for $7-8 million.

Tampa can sign him longish term (5-6 years) for $7 million a season and still have room for other moves. That is reasonable.

Frankly, if he want's $12 million and I was Stevie Y, he would be gone before you could blink. He's not worth that much money.

99pickles

Posted - 07/06/2011 : 13:19:21 I took another look and here's where the situation stands:

Tampa has $15.9M in cap space, and they have no UFAs left to worry about. Their remaining RFAs are: Stamkos, Purcell, Smaby, Lundin and if you want to include him, goalie Cedrick Desjardins (who will be cheap anyway).

They will need to address goaltending again next summer so they might not want to be right up against the cap, but Stamkos could cost them up to $12M to retain...leaving them with about $4M to retain Purcell/Lundin most signifcantly. I see Smaby and Desjardins as fairly inexpensive retentions not to be too concerned over.

It may prove to be pretty tough to hold onto Purcell and Lundin (plus a couple other spare parts) with only $4M to use. Plus they have a LOT of guys coming up as RFA/UFA next summer! They are going to be tight for a few seasons.

Perhaps a trade is inevitable.

99pickles

Posted - 06/30/2011 : 11:34:34 There are a number of teams that have both the cap space and the roster space for him, so it would make sense that he would get at least some sort of offer. And Tampa would be quite hamstrung in trying to keep him; it might be in their best interest in taking the 4 first-rounders they would get in losing him to an insane offer.